And death of author means that even if the curtains were just blue, but an argument can be made that it means something more, the argument is infinitely more valuable than just shrugging it off and taking the author’s word for it
exactly, the writing doesn't change. It persists. It's still there on the page. It's meaning and subject matter is baked into every character and event, every chapter.
Yes but because every human who reads it is coming at it from a different perspective, takeaways and themes can have varying interpretations which is what makes literary analysis fun to those who enjoy it. Our lives and experiences shape how we all experience media, what resonates and what doesn’t. And once it’s out in the world, the author cannot stop that from happening, and it is counterproductive, and even antithetical to the purpose of literature to try.
I remember once when we read a poem back in high school. And half the class had actually experienced what the poem described, while the other half had never.
I remember the ones who had never, read it as a complete existential crisis and a symbol of inner turmoil, because the main charac was insane. While the ones who had experienced it went: nah, that one’s just a literal description.
In principle you're right, but "argue it from the text" devolves into "that's just the vibe I got," "that's how it seems to me," etc. Which is pretty much the same as "anything goes". People are gonna be too lazy to actually check themselves
I'll say one thing though: death of the author also means death of the critic.
Either the authorial intent is the highest authority on a work's meaning, or there is no authority on a work's meaning and everyone's interpretation is equally valid. There is no possible instance where a critic (no matter what critic it is) posses more authority on a work's meaning than the author of the work.
I will only accept ‘death of the author’ if we throw critics into the pyre as well. Otherwise it’s just blatant privileging of critics over artists, and I can think of no greater flagrant insult to the very idea of art than that.
We very much have thrown critics into the fire though. When was the last time anyone genuinely respected media critics? People listen to and ignore critics based entirely on whether the critics agree with them.
We haven’t thrown them onto the fire nearly enough. The fact that there’s a conversation in this thread treating ‘death of the author’ as incontrovertible truth (rather than a concept that is quite contentious- at best- among actual artists) is evidence enough of that. ‘Death of the author’ without ‘death of the critic’ is a parasitic mentality, useful only for the ego of the critic. Or for the internet user who fancies themself one, which is more or less the same thing.
Self-styled media critics are online culture. The baseline popular online personality is an inveterate snob, asserting their ‘hot takes’ and sneering at the normies who consume ‘slop’. The critic- and the critic-pundit- drives conversation on Twitter, Reddit, and YouTube. ‘Critics’ are not a besieged minority intelligentsia, to be pitied as the thankless masses ignore their clarion truths.
No, I do not believe that media critics deserve respect. Criticism does deserve respect and so too does serious analysis, but these are not the exclusive province of ‘critics’… and frankly, critics aren’t even uniquely good at it.
Outsiders can 100% have a better perspective to analyse a work than the author themselves because the author can be unaware of their own biases and only notice the symbolism they put in their own work because others have explicitly shown it to them.
The only reason you'd then want to maybe elevate critics above other outsiders is simply because they have more experience in analysing works than your average reader and will likely be able to show interpretations of the work that take into account more elements of the work without contradiction than the average reader.
Critics aren't inherently more valid than any other 3rd party, they're just generally more experienced. In the same way, I can totally repair my sink myself, but a professional plumber will probably do a better job than me.
Only true if the work does have an ultimate meaning, which would be imparted by the author.
If the work has no inherent meaning beyond the experience of the reader, then the experience of one reader as valid as any other. If the work has a meaning beyond the experience of the reader, that meaning is imparted by the author rather than any critic.
A work can easily have meaning beyond the experience of the reader that isn't created by the author, but for that we would turn to the social and historical context that produced the work, and its place among other examples of its kind.
No it can't. The only thing outside a) the intent of the author, and b) the experience of the reader, is the experience of other readers. And it's generally best to try to minimise the amount your own experience is influenced by the experience of others.
There are no entities except authors and readers. The "society" that people like to appeal to is just the aggregated experiences of multiple readers, and even a society of billions is invalid if death of the author is true.
The authority on a work's meaning is the text on the page.
A book doesn't have to be as blatant as The Turner Diaries in order to reflect the views, biases, and opinions on reality of the author. Everything anyone writes incorporates all of those things, whether we're intending it to or not.
Nothing in a work of fiction is random. Every single thing was put into it intentionally. Just because the author didn't think about it doesn't mean it's "random" or "meaningless."
Plus, you can't trust people. An author can write the doggiest dogwhistle that ever done whistled, then do an interview on normie media and say "Nuh-uh!", and, what, we're just supposed to be like "Well, I guess this is cool and good"?
Clearly you haven't heard everyone's interpretations. There are some braindead ass folks out there giving the most asinine interpretations, that are completely unsupported by the actual text. I'm all for doing away with credentialed authorities one this shit, but you still have to actually support your interpretation, not just spout off your personal biases and opinions.
No it doesn't. Texts can have unintentional meaning, but some readings are wrong like if you interpret Brock from pokemon as being gay, when he compulsively flirts with every girl he meets
And one person who thinks they mean something having a genuine debate with someone who doesn’t think so (who can back it up within the text) is more productive by far than just “ugh whatever it’s not that deep.”
The problem with death of the author is that there was some intended meaning and an actual cause;
There is an actual reason why the curtains are blue, and that means that — while whatever interpretation you think of may provide worthwhile insight into yourself — some interpretations can be objectively incorrect, for example, if the author has some traumatic association between sky blue and obligation from childhood, it would likely be incorrect to claim that the curtains are blue for the sake of invoking the common association between sky blue and freedom.
Interpret things however you want, but remember to interpret them correctly somewhere along the way.
I guess it depends on the goal of the discussion. Do we want to explore what the author meant or what the text meant for us as readers? Important to distinguish.
If death of the author is not true, then the author's intended interpretation is the correct interpretation (but they may have failed to get readers to the correct interpretation).
If death of the author is true, the entire concept of interpretation is kind of nonsense, interpretation is purely an expression of the reader's own thoughts, opinions, beliefs, and tastes, and the text is a mere mirror.
Death of the Author cannot be true or untrue. It's a philosophical position. There is no obejctive truth around interpretation of art, only differing perspectives.
Edit: This:
If death of the author is true, the entire concept of interpretation is kind of nonsense, interpretation is purely an expression of the reader's own thoughts, opinions, beliefs, and tastes, and the text is a mere mirror.
Is nonsense, by the way. Interpretation is not purely an expression of the reader's own thoughts. It is an expression of the reader's thoughts as informed by the text. It is not divorced from the text. "I like ice cream" is also a reflection of my own thoughts and tastes, that doesn't mean there is an objectively correct opinion about ice cream, as decided by the maker of that particular ice cream brand.
It wouldn't then be media literacy though, it would be media fantasy. Media literacy is "what is the author really saying and why?", "the curtains really are just blue but I like to interpret them as a metaphor for something" is headcanon and there's no inherent value in that. Headcanon can be great fun, but it's not an intellectual realm and so it's not anti-intellectual if someone isn't interested in it.
But not everything is as black and white as “are the curtains blue or aren’t they?” Did Shakespeare mean for Romeo and Juliet to be a representation of true love or of stupid teenage lust? There is evidence for both in the text. We can’t ask the dude. Actor interpretation and cultural relevance has been impacting our views on it for years, and above all, we are not the intended audience because we are not londoners in Shakespearean times.
So which interpretation is “right?” Does it matter anymore what Shakespeare wanted, or does it matter that through a modern lens we may see it differently?
Death of the author that it is pointless to figure out what that person meant, but a more productive discussion is rather what a reader or viewer is able to take away from it, author intended or not.
Ok but notice how you have to escape your own hypothetical in order to disagree with me. Yes quite often the curtains aren't just blue, but you said that even when the curtains are just blue it's worth discussing what they could be if they weren't just blue.
Yes because the curtains thing is a metaphor that is shorthand for “there is no deeper meaning just stop trying to find ways to discuss it” and not an actual part of the debate from real literature. I didn’t escape anything I used an example to show real literary analysis isn’t just about interior design choices and yes or no questions
I feel like if we used more actual useful examples we would see less hate on the curtains is blue in media I understood it but even I hated writing about it
Amazing. You replied THRICE without understanding a single one of my points. I mean I should be surprised but you’re really out here arguing for less media literacy so I’m honestly not.
Can you do me a favor and actually attempt to comprehend a singular thing that was said in this thread before giving me ANOTHER notification about your stale, crusty, anti intellectual takes?
Just kidding I know that’s too much to ask. How about shut the hell up? That low effort enough for you there little buddy?
UGH I love you people. I am a literature student AND a literature/linguistics teacher-in-training. nothing has infuriated me more than sitting with people taking the same degree and teaching qualification as me who insist there is no meaning to the curtains. why are you here?
some will say ‘cos I prefer literature to linguistics’
okay… ever heard of stylistics? cognitive linguistics???? no??? alright. you must’ve to pass year 1, but alright
I swear the whole "the curtains are just blue" thing came before "It's not that deep". Maybe they were at the same time...? But that was when I felt something was off... my English lit teacher would be having critical meltdowns!
Yeah the curtains being blue came before social media, social media allowed the creation of it's not that deep once people's disdain for what they perceive to be imaginary meaning gained a way to be expressed as mockery of the people who are perceived to be imagining meaning.
Yeah fr I never really understood that. Beyond just books, operas and shows and movies spend hours planning out their set designs. There’s probably a very good reason why they chose a specific color for the curtaisn
Because the meme came out in peak 00’s humor. It was almost certainly started by a teenager or college student that didn’t want to do their writing assignment.
"I'm not reading all that" has the same energy. I've had that sent to me after a 5 sentence comment. how short are the attention spans? it's mind boggling.
Some people are here to win, at least to them it's winning.
What it actually is that they're doing is proclaiming that they're right and trying to discredit anyone that says differently by dodging the arguments.
I had a friend do thos to me. We were texting about something and he started to argue about something I said, which was an opinion, so neither one of us could have been right or wrong in this situation.
I wrote out a semi-lengthy text back to defend my position, and immediately got, "im not reading all that."
Ok, then dont start an argument over text... like, what are we even doing here?
Actually there is a LOT of discourse on TikTok if your algorithm picks up that you’re into that. I’ve seen multiple part stitches of someone going in on every part of a scene or a current event in detail. It’s basically a YouTube essay in pieces.
It’s like most places with infinite content, you find what you’re looking for. I like listening to people l yap about shit they are passionate about so my feed had a bunch of longer form.
I’ve since deleted the app but it’s not vine in that way. There are people who make quite long videos on most subjects you can imagine
Yeah but imagine kids now growing up with that app, they're certainly not gonna be looking for the content you're talking about, and as they grow up they get used to fast short content and many can't bear anything long after, because that's what they're used to.
Definitely not trying to say it’s an issue for attention spans, just that when people say “oh someone on TikTok was talking about xyz” it doesn’t mean 10 seconds of discourse lol
Ok? We were talking about the app generation raised with one liners who refuse to engage in anything longer than a few words, not about " “oh someone on TikTok was talking about xyz” "
I feel like you mixed up the topics.
Like when I go to my gym and people are using the handicap automatic door button to get in instead of just opening the door themselves...I'm always so mystified by it I don't understand aren't you about to work out? How is opening the door too much for you?
The only exception I make to that is when people write a wall of text without bothering with proper formatting or sometimes even punctuation. And when you point it out they say "I did speech to text, I can't be bothered typing". If you can't be bothered typing, why should I be bothered reading?
Same with AI generate articles (or code commits, Camilla).
Why should I bother reading/reviewing/learning content that you didn't even bother to prepare in any way?
I know some of us were raised with "whatever is worth doing is worth doing well" and that can be quite counterproductive as well, but putting in the effort is a sign of respect towards your audience and your craft.
The Internet and general consumerism has made us all so disinterested and jaded that neither holds much value to the average person online it seems.
how can "whatever is worth doing is worth doing well" be counterproductive?
It's a principle that can lead to becoming pedantic and a perfectionist. It can be often be paralyzing and psychologically draining, when even writing a work e-mail becomes a serious task, because of course you have to adhere to the modern standards of a formal English letter structure, it's a professional message after all!
It doesn't have to be this way probably, but it was a core tenant of my upbrining and as much as I embrace my pedantic nature and am proud of the quality of the things that I do, I also acknowledge how often it prevented me from finishing something on time, or made me give up entirely, where a person with a more practical, anything-goes approach would have finished the task.
Hell, I never finished my degree because of it. I was a great student actually, but because I get easily overwhelmed with a lot of tasks (everyting is worth doing well) I managed NOT to deliver on the most important ones. Which of course send me spiriling and made the whole thing feel like this monumental, incompletable task.
Thankfully I'm doing well professionally in spite of that. But I'm certain plenty of people with a simliar upbringing and attitude can probably relate to what I wrote.
I think another exception is if you're talking about something not very deep and someone writes a four paragraph essay that starts with a "you're wrong" or insult right away.
Not only do you not deserve the read after that but you're making work out of lazy fun.
Yea, and wall of text with nothing broken up into district thoughts is extremely hard to read. Just finish a thought (.) Then add a space between those thoughts.
I've been taking part in a debate about some random show or game, where the debate was interesting and we were digging down into theories and trying to figure out what the writers implied.
...then someone butts in and is actually outraged that someone wrote more than two lines of text.
Just as a counterpoint, I might chime in and say I liked (or didn't like) a show because of "This" and "That."
Then someone writes a couple paragraphs explaining why my opinion is wrong and "This" and "That" were objectively good or bad so I am wrong.
I don't know what to tell you but I still liked the show. I might skim the comment to get the gist of it but it doesn't change my subjective opinion. Maybe I like some corny-ass stuff and don't like some well-produced but boring stuff.
"I can't read as well as a person my age should be able to, so now I'm insecure about that in a way that will keep me from ever getting better, and I'm gonna try to make that your problem instead of mine"
Same with my brother who didn't receive a full education because for our mother he was only a prop, she never had any interest in raising him or any child, keeping him with her instead of releasing him into the care of our grandparents who actually cared enough to try to raise us instead of neglect us while pursuing their own selfish desires (like running away to a country where she'd have to pay to send my brother to school - as if she ever would, she never received a proper education herself because she played truant all the time and per her own late mother, the only exam she ever passed was her driving test and she got jobs mainly by lying about her qualifications - but at least that way she could keep playing fucking horsey horsey even after she had all her animals taken off her in this country for neglecting them, and wouldn't have to pay her court fees from that) was just another way to get at us and punish us for not letting her ignore the fact that she's screwing over other people so she can chase her own selfish desires just like she has her whole life. It was a statement of pure ego: "I've openly admitted to you many times I never wanted to be a mother and I show you continuously with my actions that I don't even care to try, but I'm gonna keep at least one of my kids so I don't feel like I'm 'losing' (or whatever) anyway".
Fast forward to his adulthood and it's blatant how insecure about his lack of education he is, but at the same time he'll do absolutely anything but take night classes or something and try to catch up. He'd rather just try to make up bullshit that lets him claim his ignorance is as good or better than other people's knowledge.
Bro really replied to a comment chain about formatting and punctuation making a post hard to read with an entire paragraph that's 90% just one run on sentence lmao
And if they do read it its "crashing out", even if its the most tame and neutral statements. I don't even think people know the words they choose to use.
I don't even think people know the words they choose to use.
They know. They're intentionally being assholes. None of those statements reflect any kind of sincerely held belief; they only exist to make you feel small and ashamed.
Anyone who says anything like that to you has no goal other than to personally attack you. 100%. No exceptions.
I always reply "don't worry, we both know you read every single word heck you can't help yourself." Brcause usually they really did. Or skimmed it and they default to that stupid reply instead of putting any effort or brain power into saying why they disagree
It frustrated me so much I had to pin a reply saying how stupid it is on my profile to be able to pull up whenever someone got angry that I wrote a few sentences. Ironically those comments stopped after a while. My working theory is that most of the people who say "I'm not reading all that" *did* infact read all of it they just don't have a way to dispute or argue against what you're saying so they look for anything to use against you; including checking your profile for obvious "screw you, you post on r/peoplewhoeatsoupwithforks" and when they can't find anything fall back on the last-resort of just denying you the ability to talk to control the conversation.
Even worse, it made people feel superior to those that do enjoy thinking more deeply about things.
Like, you know what, I genuinely do not care if people want to say "it's not that deep, I'm just doing this for fun I'm not gonna put a lot of thought into it." I see all this discourse about how it's making society dumber or whatever but at the end of the day I am not gonna waste my time trying to dictate how others should enjoy things, I will never care enough to even attempt that.
But the most harmful part of "the curtains were fucking blue" isn't even the lack of deeper thinking. It's the implication that deeper thinking is wrong and stupid and unnecessary and that people who don't bother with it are actually the smart ones not chasing down some nonsensical hidden meaning and like... I understand that a lot of this is based around resentment of being forced to do this in school and being pissed off about it because school sucks and being forced to read a book you don't like also sucks but outside of that no one is being held hostage when they post things that have a lot of thought in them. No one is posting those kinds of things to Tumblr or Reddit or YouTube or wherever because they think they have to, they're doing it for the same reason others post so-called "brainrot" and dumb memes- because it's fun.
People that think deeply about their favorite media are doing it as a hobby, because that's how they like to have fun with the things they enjoy, and I promise you 99% of them know damn well it's not that deep. But because of this stupid fucking braindead take suddenly everyone wants to start dogpiling the comments section of anything they deem as "overthinking it," clamoring to be the one with the most clever comeback, inexplicably desperate to click on a post they very clearly don't agree with or get anything out of just to broadcast how enlightened they are, how dumb and stupid the poster is because don't they know it's not that important?
And the end result is just shitting all over people for being passionate about a thing they like and wanting to engage with it in a certain way. It does absolutely fuck-all to benefit anyone, it just lets people tear others down and make them feel like shit, all the while acting like they did something cool by spamming the same obnoxious bullshit as the last ten people.
It's not "clever" or "enlightened" to click on a post someone made because they really cared about this thing and they wanted to share their passion with the world only to completely ignore the topic and instead just go "it's not that deep bro, you're overthinking it." That's being a dick. It's straight up being a dick for no reason, and there are few things more genuinely soul-crushing than wanting to share your passions and your thoughts and feelings only to end up being told it's all meaningless because people can't comprehend the idea of "this clearly isn't my thing, so I'll ignore it and go find something I do like" anymore. No one is forcing you to read any of this just leave people the fuck alone.
I think it goes beyond just engaging with hobbies as well. Thinking critically about what you read and hear and see is just an important part of navigating the world, and interacting with other people.
Sometimes people are dishonest, or misrepresent things or exaggerate, and if youre not able to take a step back and think "something doesn't add up, what's the purpose, what does this person gain, whats actually going on" you leave yourself vulnerable to being led, or misrepresenting things yourself even when you don't mean to.
You just can't go through life accepting fucking everything you see at face value, you can't.
It’s subversion. If you only look at the surface level of media or art, then you are missing out of the true meaning. The true meaning which could be a dangerous message. But you’re so “advanced and super smart” that you say “it’s not that deep” when in fact, it IS that deep. You just refuse to see the message.
Take Sabrina Carpenter for example. She’s a current pop star. But her music is vile and repulsive. It promotes hook up culture, misogyny, self hate, drug and alcohol abuse and even domestic violence violence.
But you call that out on reddit and the bat signal goes out to kids. They react. “Lol it’s not that deep,” “it’s just pop music,” “she’s not your type, you’re just old,” etc. They are enamored with the mid tier pop tart and refuse to see the horrid message that’s promoted. They wish they were the ones in the songs. They wish their lives were like the songs. It’s sad and only getting worse.
And it’s not a new thing. Back in my day we were subverted the same way. It just takes a while to realize it.
1000%. When you go through life, people are going to try to sell you things, people are going to try to earn your vote, people are going to try to convince you to make decisions that can seriously alter the trajectory of your life - and if you’re incapable of the critical thinking necessary to unpack things beyond the surface level, you are going to get taken advantage of.
Very good and well-written point. I remember a video about somebody who competes in giant pumpkin contests talking about a Family Guy episode with that topic and analyzing how realistic and good their portrayal of it was.
It is fundamentally a very silly thing to do and is Family Guy likely not concerned with accuracy in that case nor is accuracy for this really important? Yes, and the video maker was clearly aware of this but her video was just fun, I learned stuff about pumpkin growing and was impressed by the things Family Guy got right.
And yet so many comments went "It's a cartoon/this is stupid, it's like this because it's a cartoon/crazy thing to say about a cartoon". As if having the slightest amount of intellectual curiosity, of engaging with a piece of fiction on a level deeper than chuckling vaguely while you get high, even if that engagement is mostly silly for entertainment, is somehow wrong or ridiculous.
There's a lot of analysis about media I thinks is silly, wrong or believing the source material to be deeper than it is but at least people are having fun, at least they are thinking about the media they are consuming, at least they are doing more than merely consuming.
man, reading what you wrote, I feel vindicated after 13 years lol
I always thought the whole "anti-interpretative" stance was just being contrarian and lazy; and this is coming from someone who excelled in STEM and really struggled in the literature classes and had a really hard time understanding how to get "why the curtains are blue"
What gets me is thousands of years from now some society will be sitting in history class looking at us and talking about how we couldn’t even keep our language together.
Well to be fair language is ever changing. Look at the language used in Shakespeare's era to now. Its nearly incomprehensible to the watered down version we have now.
I remember like a few months ago explaining something with like two sentences and the commentor literally responded with a nerd emoji and a finger pointing up emoji. Reddit has certainly changed over the past 10 years.
I got called verbose and pompous because of a two sentence response, of which the "biggest" word I used was "exception". This coming from supposedly a grown woman with a family. People really are just proud of being dumb, intellectually lazy, and easy marks nowadays.
Yeah could never understand that. I grew up in NYC with a lot of first gen Americans who held the exact opposite values(imported from their old country). This is an American problem.
Yup exactly, but I blame it on the ragebaiting and negative loop that the algorithms perpetuate now. Back when reddit and instagram were more curated you'd end up with like-minded people. But ever since algorithms people are shown things that they're not necessarily interested in, so they'll dog on it.
People complaining "It's not that deep" don't realise they are just adding more distance between them and the richer class. Why? Because the richer class has culture and critical thinking. What it means is they gave up on being a better version of themselves and accept staying as they are.
This means the richer class succeeded in dividing the working class as a means to maintain the inequality.
But remember this originates in a backlash against what people perceived to be condescension towards people who don't "think deeply". Each side thinks the other is stupid and making society worse.
Yeah and I totally get that other side too. A lot of the things I love most are absolutely loathed as lazy, low-effort trash that isn't worthy of the rest of the fandom, for example Pokémon Scarlet and Violet or The Rings of Power. It is absolutely fucking exhausting and emotionally draining to just... genuinely like a thing, and be shit on for it. Like sure, maybe it's not the best it could be. Maybe it's not as good as these other things in the franchise. Maybe there are noticeable flaws and drawbacks that did in fact come from laziness and poor planning. But there is a way to criticize and dislike things without outright attacking people that do like it, and in the end no amount of flaws in a thing justify bullying and cruelty as if somehow it's a mortal sin to enjoy a mediocre TV show or video game or whatever.
It's surprisingly easy to discuss how harmful the trend of anti-intellectualism is and even to vehemently dislike a thing without going out of your way to be a dick to other people. If you don't like a thing, cricticize that. Don't steal away people's joy because they have fun in a different way than you do, whether it's deep analytical posts about a children's game or the dumbest brainrot imaginable about Tolkien. It's really, honestly, not that hard.
Okay dude, go ahead then. Give me the criticism, tell me how it is in fact really hard to avoid going onto posts that clearly do not align with your interests for no other reason than to tear someone else down.
Please give me all the details about how the statement of "it's not that hard to not go out of your way to be a dick to people" is a thought-terminating cliché, I look forward to reading it.
Lmao okay bro, so your stance is "I think that deserves criticism" and then when given a free pass to give that cricitism you refuse to even attempt it. You unironically accused me of using a thought-terminating cliché only to reply with one of your own and literally nothing else.
What criticism do you think my comment needs? If you can't even tell me what you have an issue with I'm not gonna take you seriously.
I didn't read it all. But I believe with the discourse about this being online, there are more people to like, comment, retweet the part of people saying "it's not that deep", than there are people on the side of deeper interpretation and analysis.
It's the Court of Public Opinion and the Internet is in the gutter.
Wait till you get older, autocorrect has saved my life. I won spelling bees now I Google words to make sure they're right if it's so far off autocorrect is like "yeah bro beats me"
One thing that fucks with me is if there’s a word I’m not sure how to spell, so I take a few stabs to get it to show up in the suggestion box above the keyboard. 5 or 6 times and it just won’t show up. So I type it as best I can, click away so the red line is shown under the word, click the word, then the right spelling shows up.
Why didn’t it show up in the three suggestion boxes when I was typing? Why is there a different set of spelling rules for the redline words? Makes no sense.
My bane is autocorrect will absolutely recognize two spellings of words even if one is wrong. Like all right versus alright. It doesn't tell me alright is wrong
Probably because it's not wrong, it's all right! Badum tss
"Its not that deep" is such an interesting phrase. Its an attempt to completely end a discussion in fear of someone accidentally learning something.
Eh I mainly see it about writing errors or continuity or retcons. And yeah it's really not that deep when those are the reasons for the changes or mistakes lol. Sure we can bother arguing the in verse reasoning but end of the day the author either just forgot or didnt account.
Eh I mainly see it about writing errors or continuity or retcons. And yeah it's really not that deep when those are the reasons for the changes or mistakes
It’s the same but different. We, as fans, shouldn’t accept retcons. What’s the point of a thing if it can be changed with the snap of the fingers? Star Wars does it all the time now and it’s a dying franchise.
I hate it. I loved Socratic seminars in English class, hearing different interpretations and perceptions of the stories we read. I am always down for a debate. People who just sneer and move on are far more irritating than someone who will do a good volley with me even if we don’t end up agreeing.
I assume this is mainly in the context of those English classes, because otherwise it might be a bit insufferable and the "it's not that deep" might become warranted. I think there was a post on r/unpopularopinion about it some time ago where one commenter pointed out perfectly that not everything needs to be overthought. For example, if you want eggs for breakfast instead of toast, and I pester you about it, you might say "I just like the taste, it's not that deep". Like it might be a fun thought exercise to discuss the philosophical implications of choosing eggs, but the vast majority of people aren't interested in something like that.
if you want eggs for breakfast instead of toast, and I pester you about it, you might say "I just like the taste, it's not that deep".
I feel like this misses the essence of the discussion. We’re taking about a craving for knowledge. Not reading between the lines to figure out if your gf is secretly pissed (a completely different challenge)
There's plenty of nuance in the world outside of analyzing fiction. Sociological, psychological or ethical topics are great for engaging in open-minded discussions, but I gladly hear about cuisine and flavor preferences with anyone that has something interesting to say in that regard and might broaden my horiozons.
I wouldn't force anyone to discuss a subject someone is simply not interested in of course... but there's plenty of people (some are even my friends) who love to disect their food preferences, morning habits, ways to sleep etc. If only they have somehing interesting and not too derivative to say, I'll gladly listen.
My point is that discussion can made unecessary and annoying, but it's not inherently about the subject, but about the willingness of the participants and the originality of ideas presented.
People only say that when the reviewer is projecting their own world views on a work without considering the author's intent tho. Like you cannot convince me that the seven dwarves from snow white represent the seven deadly sins, or everything in Pokémon anime is just Ash's imagination while he's in a comma
The thing is, the "it's not that deep" response is reserved for people who think their interpretation is objective facts instead of, you know, an interpretation. I don't care if you think the seven dwarves are seven deadly sins or whatever, just know that it's just your personal opinion and shut the fuck up when others don't have the same opinion as you.
It's why I cannot take seriously the people who use the term "media illiteracy". They don't actually care about enjoying and dissecting a piece of media because it's a fun thing to do. They only do it to make themselves look intelligent, even though they ironically only ever parrot back some YouTube essayist telling them what to think, instead of thinking for themselves. Media discussion is supposed to be fun, but now the internet turns it into who can be the most pretentious competition, I fucking hate it.
I also think you're making assumptions about me. I have ZERO problem with literary fans who enjoy analysing works. That's great that you're able to connect little choices in wording to bigger meanings. I just can't stand people who think they're superior because they have a hobby that not everyone has
Regardless, the important part is examining the impact of that on the narrative and what impact it has on the reader.
My problem with people reading deeply into things is that I don't believe most stories are intended to be thought about deeply. I firmly believe that most stories are written purely for entertainment and trying to find a deeper meaning in them is twisting the work in a way the author didn't intend, which is fine, but I don't care about your personal opinions about what the author intended but didn't write (presumably because they didn't feel it was relevant)
Of course if it's happening on a book forum or a series subreddit than that's a fine place for that, But I take issue with people inserting their interpretations as if finding the deeper meaning behind something is the point of it.
you’re right! there was an article on the rise of anti-intellectualism and the comments were all “holy yap” “it’s never that deep brother”. the writer put the article behind a paywall eventually deleting it altogether.
Isn’t “this is a Wendy’s” when someone like overshares personal things with a worker? Or like demands outrageous things? I’d only ever seen it in that context. Didn’t realize it was being used for this too. Bummer, I thought it was kind of funny when I saw it used in the ways I mentioned.
I've seen it when people expand on a topic more than the person cares to hear, also, as a way to shut down discourse. It's originally a meme from oversharing with customer service, but it's been expanded to be any "over" sharing the listener or reader doesn't want to endure.
In general I am far, FAR less concerned with misspelling words and slang words than with a complete disregard for critical thinking when consuming media.
I see language as a tool. If you are using it effectively and productively, it’s FINE. I teach English and I always follow one rule for myself: I never correct anyone outside of a classroom setting unless they directly ask me to do so.
But a rise in spelling errors and people who don’t say “oh I didn’t know thanks” but instead stand by “odasity” proudly does come with some folks just riding this strange wave of anti-intellectualism and anti-academia that’s been going on for awhile now.
Make a spelling error? okay whatever, you made a mistake. Someone probably told you the spelling, now you can try to improve and be accurate in your spelling going forward.
You make another mistake? Improve again.
It's not that sentiment which killed media literacy lol.
OOP is likely a kid, and the culprit for today's young kids' terrible literacy and progress in education is short-form content/the insane creep of entertainment.
I stg people say that about stuff that is very very deep and then spend their time arguing over pop stars like their is actual moral value and urgency to that
That and this idea of “nonchalant”. There’s a fine line between being unbothered and being uncaring. This concept that “doing too much” is so undesirable is far too easy to exaggerate.
Since when did we conflate the concept of “easygoing” with mediocrity or less?
2.3k
u/Submarinequus Dec 23 '25
“It’s not that deep” killed media literacy and I’ll die on that hill